Bulleid's Leader: could it have even been successful?

[LMS2968]

The Sun is the source of power. Everything else is just storage.

 

(Now where did that hydrogen come from)

Well, you'll need a pretty big magnifying glass to boil the water in the boiler to work the train!

[kevinlms]

Well, you'll need a pretty big magnifying glass to boil the water in the boiler to work the train!

Not necessarily.

 

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/swisselec/swisselc.htm

[runs as required]

Not necessarily.

 

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/swisselec/swisselc.htm

Presumably that is water generated (hydro) electricity heating the steam!

dh

[Nearholmer]

"Modern Key Stage 3 physics introduces the concept of "energy stores"; "work" happens when energy is transferred from one form (store) to another. "Power" is the rate at which energy is transferred."

 

I seem to remember that antediluvian school physics for 11-14 year olds did exactly the same ......... which is good really, because the laws of physics probably haven't changed much in the past forty or fifty years, at least not the bits that I can understand (one of my nephews studies pure physics, and the outer reaches of that seem to change frequently, but it goes completely over my head!).

 

K

Edited July 9, 2017 by Nearholmer

[rodent279]

"Modern Key Stage 3 physics introduces the concept of "energy stores"; "work" happens when energy is transferred from one form (store) to another. "Power" is the rate at which energy is transferred."

 

I seem to remember that antediluvian school physics for 11-14 year olds did exactly the same ......... which is good really, because the laws of physics probably haven't changed much in the past forty or fifty years, at least not the bits that I can understand (one of my nephews studies pure physics, and the outer reaches of that seem to change frequently, but it goes completely over my head!).

 

K

 

Ultimately, most forms of energy end up as kinetic energy in molecules.

[Nearholmer]

Which forms don't?

[peach james]

OT I know, but I think an even more interesting question than the OP is, could modern materials and techniques make the atmospheric railway a success? I'm not putting it forward as a serious alternative to the modern railway-but could we make it work given modern materials technology?

There is an american with an atmospheric railway around his vineyard- http://www.flightrail.com/

[TravisM]

There is an american with an atmospheric railway around his vineyard- http://www.flightrail.com/

 

This has already been posted on this thread.

 

Julian Sprott

[runs as required]

This has already been posted on this thread.

 

Julian Sprott

I think that is the point.

the vineyard roundy-round keeps coming back again 'cos rodent279 doesn't like the taste of the grease sealing the tube after the train has past.

Modern materials win through. A modern robot stoker could have coped with Bulleid's fireman's hell hole.

.

dh

[rodent279]

Which forms don't?

Can't think of any really.....in the end it pretty much all gets turned into heat somehow or other.

[PatB]

To be fair to Brunel, at the time that it was proposed the atmospheric railway made sense in some respects.

 

Stationary pumping engines were a fairly mature technology at the time, with a suitably skilled workforce readily available to maintain and operate them. Not so the high speed, main line railway locomotive, which was still in its infancy.

 

A means of traction which wasn't reliant on the friction of (usually) a single pair of driving wheels to haul loads on the South Devon banks would have been quite appealing.

 

Typical trains of the mid-C19th were quite light and so the limited tractive effort available from a maximum pressure difference of a bit less than 1 bar probably wasn't that much of a problem (in theory). Besides, given the saving on expensive locomotives and the skilled crews to operate them, you could always just run more frequent trains.

 

Of course, we now know that the material technology of the time wasn't up to the job, that better future-proofing was required to allow heavier and faster trains, and that locomotive technology and performance would advance at such a rapid rate that it would overtake the stationary engine powered throwbacks in every respect within a decade or so. Things might have looked a bit different from the South Devon boardroom at the time though.

[runs as required]

A book I have by my bedside guaranteed to overcome insomnia by randomly dipping in to read a few pages is

‘How Steam Locomotives Really Work’ by P.W.B Semmens and AJ Goldfinch (Oxford paperback 2003).

 

Last night at about 0325H  I read this (p124) and thought it relevant to this topic:

“The designer must take all ... factors into account when producing a new class of locomotive, but the process has mainly been an evolutionary one, based on experience with previous designs. During the twentieth-century history of the steam locomotive there were relatively few Oliver Bulleids.”

 

I’ve always admired Semmens’s writing.

But I realise that my design education in the 1950s was not at all based on this.

Mine was derived from the Bauhaus and the German Technische Hochschule tradition – of start with a tabula rasa, take nothing for granted and question everything.

 

I have to admit I proved rather mediocre at this and quickly learnt to try to find a precedent to hide behind in order to get my suggestions accepted.

 

dh

Edited July 10, 2017 by runs as required

[jjb1970]

The problem for the classic steam locomotive is that it had been developed pretty much as far as it would go before Bulleid's day. I'm curious to see how the 5AT would perform in reality, even that proposal which is meant to be a new generation steamer is really just an evolutionary upgrade of the classic steamer and wouldn't be any sort of paradigm shift which would make steam competitive with the alternatives. Which is why the Leader and the Bulleid story is so fascinating for me, whatever faults he might have had Bulleid wasn't an idiot or oblivious to basic thermodynamics and the concept of efficiency. He probably understood the limitations of steam locomotive technology far better than anybody on this thread yet he persisted with his efforts to maintain the relevance of steam as a technology. I find that to be a story which is far more interesting than most in the railway world.

[rodent279]

The problem for the classic steam locomotive is that it had been developed pretty much as far as it would go before Bulleid's day. I'm curious to see how the 5AT would perform in reality, even that proposal which is meant to be a new generation steamer is really just an evolutionary upgrade of the classic steamer and wouldn't be any sort of paradigm shift which would make steam competitive with the alternatives. Which is why the Leader and the Bulleid story is so fascinating for me, whatever faults he might have had Bulleid wasn't an idiot or oblivious to basic thermodynamics and the concept of efficiency. He probably understood the limitations of steam locomotive technology far better than anybody on this thread yet he persisted with his efforts to maintain the relevance of steam as a technology. I find that to be a story which is far more interesting than most in the railway world.

 

I agree with the first sentence, yet....there are always refinements that can be applied. Roller bearings throughout, roller bearing on the big ends & con rods (like on some German Neubauloks), electric lighting, oil/pulverised coal firing, better, cleaner methods of dispaosal (big vacuum cleaners!), maybe a re-visitation of condensing engines, compounding, the list is endless. None would be silver bullets that suddenly made steam on a par with modern diesel & electrics, but a whole load could be done that was not really tried.

 

As for Bulleid, and for that matter, Brunel, both were gifted geniuses, possibly a little too wayward and off the wall at times, but as I said before, you don't make progress by sticking with what you know.

 

And anyway, electric railways are essentially steam powered with electric transmission, in the sense that most power up unitl the last decade or so has been generated by steam turbines. (Granted, some countries like Switzerland have probably always generated more by hydro-electric than by steam).

 

cheers N

[kevinlms]

I agree with the first sentence, yet....there are always refinements that can be applied. Roller bearings throughout, roller bearing on the big ends & con rods (like on some German Neubauloks), electric lighting, oil/pulverised coal firing, better, cleaner methods of dispaosal (big vacuum cleaners!), maybe a re-visitation of condensing engines, compounding, the list is endless. None would be silver bullets that suddenly made steam on a par with modern diesel & electrics, but a whole load could be done that was not really tried.

 

 

cheers N

As well as the roller bearings, various other experiments were tried on BR Standards. Things like Caprotti valve gear and Crosti boilers and proved to have worse economics than standard Walschaerts and boilers. Partly due to the discounts for poorer quality coal from the NCB, were negligible.

[John_Miles]

I agree with the first sentence, yet....there are always refinements that can be applied. Roller bearings throughout, roller bearing on the big ends & con rods (like on some German Neubauloks), electric lighting, oil/pulverised coal firing, better, cleaner methods of dispaosal (big vacuum cleaners!), maybe a re-visitation of condensing engines, compounding, the list is endless. None would be silver bullets that suddenly made steam on a par with modern diesel & electrics, but a whole load could be done that was not really tried.

 

As for Bulleid, and for that matter, Brunel, both were gifted geniuses, possibly a little too wayward and off the wall at times, but as I said before, you don't make progress by sticking with what you know.

 

And anyway, electric railways are essentially steam powered with electric transmission, in the sense that most power up unitl the last decade or so has been generated by steam turbines. (Granted, some countries like Switzerland have probably always generated more by hydro-electric than by steam).

 

cheers N

 

The word "genius" is bandied around far too easily these days. A genius is someone who makes a substantial change, for the good, to things such as our vision of the world. So you have people like Newton who gave us differential calculus, an understanding of how gravity works and the basis of mechanics.

 

Brunel gave us - a wider gauge than other railways which caused the GWR financial problems for years, engines which didn't work and he had to be rescued by a combination of the Stephensons and Gooch, awful management skills, dreadful cost estimating and control, expensive ventures into untested technology with the atmospheric railway, ships which lost money (admittedly his concept was good). His structures were good and for this he deserves credit and he chose a good route for the GWR main line. He made a contribution to tunnelling with his shield.

 

Bullied gave us ???? Engines which burst into flames and had to be rebuilt and had dodgy chain driven valve gear.

[rockershovel]

I wouldn't necessarily agree that a "genius" produced a GOOD contribution. Tony Blair might be described as a genius, in his particular way, after all, for his profound restructuring of British politics... Mussolini (the inventor of Fascism), Hitler, Lenin and Stalin all displayed a particular genius.

 

Good ideas, proverbially, are ideas which are obvious once someone else has them. Bill Gates was, and is a modern genius, for his truly original vision of what computers COULD be, and the ability to make it happen. Steve Jobs, I don't know. The truly successful entrepreneurs at the very cutting edge of American financial manipulation, the Soros, Buffetts and the like, might be geniuses and certainly display abilities most of their competitors can't even understand.

 

Brunel, for me, was a visionary who appealed to the great Victorian principle of MAKING THINGS WORK. Of course, most of them DIDN'T actually work, in the sense of doing what they were designed to do, or being visibly superior; but he was a magician with stone and metal, steam and water, and the Victorians idolised him for it.

 

Don't forget that Newton wasted much of his life in alchemical research, and STILL found time to spend three decades as Master of the Royal Mint, which is rarely remembered today.

 

Nansen, the polar explorer, was a respected neurosurgical researcher and subsequently a diplomat, but appears to have been profoundly mistaken about his experiences in the nascent Soviet Union; does HE count?

[jjb1970]

I agree with the first sentence, yet....there are always refinements that can be applied. Roller bearings throughout, roller bearing on the big ends & con rods (like on some German Neubauloks), electric lighting, oil/pulverised coal firing, better, cleaner methods of dispaosal (big vacuum cleaners!), maybe a re-visitation of condensing engines, compounding, the list is endless. None would be silver bullets that suddenly made steam on a par with modern diesel & electrics, but a whole load could be done that was not really tried.

 

 

 

I wouldn't disagree that there were still improvements to be made to the classic steam locomotive, but any improvements were really going to be modest evolutionary upgrades of an already mature technology. The 5AT proposal tied a lot of these possible improvements together into a design intended to take advantage of modern materials and manufacturing yet for all that the it still promised to be very inefficient. I believe that if you really wanted to develop a modern steam locomotive that a condensing turbine would be the way to go, probably with an electric transmission. The steam state of a classic locomotive with low pressure steam and fairly low superheat expanded in cylinders is inherently limited in terms of performance and efficiency. In any modern design coal firing would be a complete non-starter on environmental grounds, yet combusting oil or gas in a steam locomotive would be bonkers when you can get massively better efficiency and performance combusting the fuel in a diesel engine or gas turbine.

[LMS2968]

I suggested similar a long time ago, but also mentioned the problems: size and weight. A rather heavy and bulky diesel engine is replaced by a fairly small turbine, but a large boiler and a similar sized condenser, together with the fan system to provide sufficient air flow.

 

You might have a more efficient steam engine, but one so cumbersome as to be out of the question.

[rockershovel]

Electric motors have a fundamental advantage - few, if any reciprocating parts. Turbines are the same.

 

I think they were just one of those ideas that look good, but really don't work in practice, introduced too late in the day to have a real chance of success

[Nearholmer]

I've lost the thread here a bit. Are we talking about steam-electric locos?

 

If so, the first, designed by Heilmann, was consciously named a thermo-electric, because he was well aware of the limitations imposed by a bulky boiler, foresaw the evolution of internal combustion engines of suitable power and weight, but needed to crack-on with his tests/trials.

 

The tests/trials weren't even to prove that the loco would work, because he knew it would; they were about understanding where the boundary in economic terms lay between an electrical supply via infrastructure, and electricity generated "on board" ........ he knew that what we now know as the diesel-electric loco was "just around the corner", and had no interest in steam locomotion.

 

Kevin

[rodent279]

I've lost the thread here a bit. Are we talking about steam-electric locos?

 

If so, the first, designed by Heilmann, was consciously named a thermo-electric, because he was well aware of the limitations imposed by a bulky boiler, foresaw the evolution of internal combustion engines of suitable power and weight, but needed to crack-on with his tests/trials.

 

The tests/trials weren't even to prove that the loco would work, because he knew it would; they were about understanding where the boundary in economic terms lay between an electrical supply via infrastructure, and electricity generated "on board" ........ he knew that what we now know as the diesel-electric loco was "just around the corner", and had no interest in steam locomotion.

 

Kevin

 

Heilmann-never heard of him, will have to google.

 

Surely though, you wouldn't need a heavy, bulky, conventional locomotive boiler, if you're going down the condensing/turbine route? Surely a water tube boiler, oil/gas/pulverised coal would be the way to go?

 

Going back to atmospheric railways, a modern day equivalent would be a linear induction motor powered railway? A concept proven in some areas, but which has never been translated successfully to the railway.

 

Imagine that though? Every vehicle powered, but no heavy, noisy traction motors under each axle. Acceleration & braking no longer dependant on wheel/rail adhesion. Gradients become virtually irrelevant.

 

There are some pretty big technical problems to be overcome before it could be reaity though.

 

cheers N

[rockershovel]

Gradients aren't irrelevant to linear induction motors, because of the requirement to apply force (power) to maintain forward motion while moving the load up the gradient.

 

Linear motors share a characteristic with atmospheric ones - the indefinite multiplication of the components of one side of the system, over the whole route length, whereas a locomotive has the same fixed cost over 1km or 1000km. Also, critical component failure of a locomotive need not stop the whole system, provided you have another locomotive.

[Zomboid]

Doesn't the Vancouver metro (SkyTrain?) use linear induction motors?

[LMS2968]

Surely though, you wouldn't need a heavy, bulky, conventional locomotive boiler, if you're going down the condensing/turbine route? Surely a water tube boiler, oil/gas/pulverised coal would be the way to go?

The very high pressure water tube boiler was part of my idea all those years ago. This would reduce both size and weight of the boiler and condenser, but they would still be larger and heavier than a diesel engine. And you have problems with a water tube boiler mounted on rails, as Sir Nigel found out. Whether or not modern technology could overcome these is speculative.

 

But it isn't going to happen. The fact is that no steam locomotive that strayed far from the Stephenson Rocket principles has ever been sufficiently successful to justify large scale production, and most have been abject failures. I don't support the 5AT project because, basically, it is still Rocket grown up.